About the server choice

[Florent Gallaire]

Hello,

I have some questions about the web server to choose to serve a CB site.

1) With the 0.7 release, CB default choice has switch from MochiWeb to
Misultin, why ?
2) As Misultin is dead, what will be the default choice for the next
CB release ?
3) From this article :
http://labs.kivra.com/post/18997612526/a-comparison-of-web-servers-for-running-chicago-boss
it seems to me that Misultin and MochiWeb are close in performance,
but that simple_bridge really underperforms the standalone server.
Is that really a good choice to use simple_bridge ??
I understand the concept of abstraction layer, but as Misultin is
dead, why to kill performance with simple_bridge ? What about a simple
integration with the industry standard, rock solid MochiWeb (and
Webmachine ?) ?

Cheers

Florent

--
FLOSS Engineer & Lawyer

[Bip Thelin]

I can't really comment on 1) and 2). 3) It's really an apple and oranges comparison to compare the performance of misultin standalone with that of simple_bridge+CB. The standalone test in that article is for establishing a baseline, i.e. what's the maximum performance. But running misultin standalone you don't get any of CB's feature. I don't think that simple_bridge is so much of a performance thieve since it's just a thin wrapper over the API.

Also there has happened allot with CB since I wrote that article and I haven't had time to benchmark the new code (but my quick tests unfortunately shows that with poolboy it's gone slower. But don't take my word for it since I haven't had time to benchmark it thoroughly).

If you're cool with doing everything yourself( and I mean _everything_) and don't really need a web framework I'd gone with using Cowboy, but if you wan't a good erlang web framework CB's probably one of the best choices out there right now.

Also, we just migrated some 20 resources from Webmachine(mochiweb) to Cowboy and we're really happy with that.

--
Bip Thelin

KIVRA | Lugnets Allé 1 | 120 33 Stockholm
Tel 08-533 335 37 | Mob 0735-18 18 90
www.kivra.com

[Manuel A. Rubio "Bombadil"]

Hi Florent,

Mochiweb is a good option and, Misultin were too... but now, the way
could be integrate mochiweb and cowboy, though. Webmachine is a new
abstraction layer over mochiweb and it could less performance than
mochiweb stand-alone, but I don't know, has anyone tested it?

Regards.

Manuel A. Rubio "Bombadil"
Usuario de GNU/Linux #323628 acorde a http://counter.li.org/
Técnico en Admin. Sistemas Informáticos

[Konstantin Nikiforov]

1. AFAIK, Mochiweb source tree contains lots of non-http-server-related
stuff, for example HTML/DOM-parser (mochiweb_html:parse/1); lots of
utils, that duplicates httpd_util, http_uri and other packages from
erlang STDLIB and many more.
So generally, mochiweb goes to be something big and fat, complex swiss
knife, but not pure http-server.

> Misultin is dead
2. Misultin is ready to use. It is just a lightweigth HTTP-library and
nothing more. This is bad?

3. a) Syntetic tests is useless crap. *Real* web-application performance
is always bound to database and HTML-generator overhead.
You can save couple of microseconds by manipulating with/without
simple_bridge, juggling with different web-servers, but all of this
will be far from *real* project with big database.

b) Webmachine (WM) is not optimal idea if you just want to write a web
site for web-browsers.
WM knows everything about HTTP-logic, dozens of HTTP-codes etc. But all
of this is *really* useless in real world. WM is very good for writing
HTTP-servers for complex non-web-browser-http-clients.

Also, WM looks abandoned and bound to ancient mochiweb version.

So, 1, 2, 3 are related to KISS and modularity paradigms.


В Fri, 18 May 2012 02:15:48 +0200
Florent Gallaire <fgal...@gmail.com> пишет: